Luke 7:30 - God is an OV'er! (cont.)

[drdeutsch]

This is a continuation of the "God is not an OV'er!" thread from TOL. This post is mainly for Jaltus, as we left our debate talking about Luke 7:30 and also the Cyrus issue. Hopefully we can get to Cyrus again later.

"But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John" (NASB).

The debate is about God's will, thelema, and His counsel, boule. I hold to the belief that God's will can be thwarted by man, but that his counsel can never be. Luke 7:30 says that the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected" God's counsel or purpose for themselves. Jaltus argues that this would nullify God's counsel in this instance, but I think we have to examine "reject" (atheteo) a bit more closely.

"Atheteo" can indeed mean thwart or nullify, but it can also mean "disregard" or "set aside." In Mark 7:9 we read that Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they "disregard (or set aside) the commandment of God so [they] can maintain [their] own traditions." Does this nullify God's commandment? Certainly not!

There are NT examples where "atheteo" can mean "nullify" or "thwart," 1 Co 1:19 is a good example, as is Gal 3:15. There are also several LXX uses, but this isn't the only meaning of the word.

The most common sense of the word in early usage (LXX, Patristic writings is "rebel against" or "despise; contemn" - see 2 Kings 1:1, Jer 3:20, judges 9:23 and even Hermas' Visions 2.2.2 or Mandates 3.2.

In this light, it is reasonable to believe that the Pharisees were not nullifying God's counsel, but simply despising or rebelling against it. The others justified God by being baptised, the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected God's purpose" by not being baptised. But what exactly is God's counsel here? Would it be feasible to say that in this context it is the redemption of Israel under the reign of Jesus Christ? Ultimately, that plan will be fulfilled, no matter what the Pharisees do. Those who honored God's "boule" will partake in that kingdom, those who rebelled against it will not. It doesn't nullify His counsel.

Perhaps even more interesting is the use of eis heautous in the verse. "Atheteo" is rarely used with "eis" (Hermas' Visions 2.2.2 uses it in the sense of "against"), but none of the other examples tack on the reflexive pronoun "heautous." The most basic reading would be "against themselves," i.e. the rejection of God's purposeby the Pharisees, although directed against God, is only effective against themselves. Not only does this verse show that God's counsel cannot be thwarted, it teaches that opposition to God only comes back to hurt the opposing force.

Dr. Deutsch

[Jaltus]

Alright, to summarize for our viewing audience, it is BOULH we will be dealing with (I am using the Greek transliteration from my sig, it is a widely adopted format), since we both agree on QELEMA.

Drd wants to push this debate toward the meaning of AQETEW, which is the correct move.

Let me quote BDAG (p. 24) on this word:

1. to reject something as invalid, declare invalid, nullify, ignore

2. to reject by not recognizing something or someone, reject, not recognize, disallow

3. to make of no account, be insolent/offensive (intransitive)

Obviously, the last can be ruled out since it is a transitive verb. We are left with either 1 or 2. But does it matter?

If the Pharisees "reject [God's plan] as invalid," then they have still rejected God's plan, making it null and void for them, meaning it was overturned.

If they "reject [God's plan] by not recognizing it," they still have defeated God's plan. Either way, God's plan is in fact thwarted. There is just no way to say that God's plan is NOT thwarted. There really is no way to spin this verse such that God's BOULH wins.

Marshall, in his commentary on Luke for the NIGTC, says that AQETEW is "the negative response" to God's will (p. 426).

As for EIS hEAUTOUS, he lists various options, ending with, "'so far as it concerned themselves' (Creed, 108). This last view is best," (p. 299).

in other words, no matter how you translate and exegete this section, it always comes back to the same thing, God's BOULH is thwarted.

[drdeutsch]

So I guess it depends on what you think God's BOULH (thanks for the transliteration hints) is in this context? Is God's BOULH that the Pharisees and Sadducees be baptised? Well then, it would be thwarted. It's not that simple, though. I think it is completely reasonable to say that God's BOULH in this context (He can counsel and determine different things) is the redemption of Israel through Jesus Christ. Those who are baptised will enter into that Kingdom, while those who aren't (the Pharisees) will not. Does their rejection of a share of the pie, so to speak, mean that it won't happen? God forbid! "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out" (Luke 13:28).

God's BOULH is not thwarted because the Pharisees and lawyers didn't want to take part in it. Remember, ultimately nothing can be done against the truth (2 Cor 13:8).

Dr. Deutsch

[Jaltus]

Nothing can be done against the truth, but truth is the person of Christ, not the plan or BOULH of God! You are confusing terms here, if you equate them.

The text clearly says they rejected God's BOULH for themselves. They rejected God's BOULH. God's BOULH, then, was the opposite of what they did. Therefore, God's BOULH was thwarted.

I really do not see how you can say that their rejection of God's BOULH is not thwarting God's BOULH. The two are synonymous.

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

You're saying that God's BOULH, His counsel, in this instance, was the individual predestination of the Pharisees and Sadducees to be baptized by John? Therefore, by not being baptized by him, they thwarted God's counsel?

You could do it with a corporate election also, if you like, that the Pharisees and Sadducees as a group were predestined to be baptized by John, but they thwarted God's counsel and refused to be baptized by him.

Is that what you believe to be God's BOULH in this instance? If not, then what is God's BOULH in this case?

I don't believe the text speaks so clearly. If the Pharisees indeed rejected God's plan by not recognizing it against themselves (or for themselves, if you must have it that way, although I do believe EIS HEAUTOUS is a hapax legomenon - I could be wrong) then that doesn't thwart God's plan.

"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" Not recognizing the Son of Man as the Son of God or as the one who shall redeem Israel definitely does not thwart Jesus' existence as the Son of God, and does not mean that the redemption of Israel will not come to pass.

I guess we have come to an impasse as to what God's BOULH in this instance actually is.

Dr. Deutsch

[Jaltus]

EIS hEAUTOUS also occurs in Luke 22:17 and in I Peter 4:8, 10.

Luke 22:17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.


I Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.


I Peter 4:10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.


This is just some info for you. It seems to be a flexible phrase.

My actual post:

You seem to forget what John's baptism is about, it is about repentance! The leaders rejected it due to pride, they could not allow the people to think they needed to repent of anything. John's baptism was about getting right with God, but they assumed they already were (makes you think of I John 1, right?).

Well, I wait till you respond before moving any farther.